Techdirt. Stories filed under "batteries"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "batteries"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:39:00 PDTProposed DHS Rules May Cause The Deaths They Claim To PreventAndrew "K'Tetch" Nortonhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170531/23422237494/proposed-dhs-rules-may-cause-deaths-they-claim-to-prevent.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170531/23422237494/proposed-dhs-rules-may-cause-deaths-they-claim-to-prevent.shtml
Back at the end of March, the Department of Homeland [in]Security issued rules stating that all electronics larger than a smartphone should be checked instead of kept in a carry-on on flights into the US from 10 airports or on 9 airlines from mainly Muslim countries in the middle east and north Africa. This was following claims by US and UK intelligence that terrorists are smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items to 'target commercial aviation'.

Not only does this not pass the smell test -- anyone looking to bring down an aircraft with explosive devices won't care if they're in the cabin or the hold: boom is boom. The idea that items are going to go through some sort of super-secret screening is laughable, when red-team penetration tests find it trivial to get prohibited items onto aircraft (including via people with no ticket who bypass security screenings). And, of course, airports already require carry-on electronics to be x-rayed, and often swabbed for explosive residue. What's more, I remember seeing 'explosives smuggled on board' hysteria since Pan Am 103 almost 30 years ago, where Czech explosive Semtex was suspected to be in everything from fake muesli to electronics following the use of just 12 ounces (340g) to blast a 50cm hole in the 747's hold.

A more "credible" theory is potential "cyber warfare" (a pox on that term). With electronics out of sight of the passengers after check-in, access to them is far easier for 'security services'. As well as allowing easy access to snoop on passenger electronics and data, there is a potential for far more nefarious actions in the tradition of Stuxnet.

Stuxnet was a worm that targeted a certain Siemens industrial control system primarily used by Iranian nuclear centrifuges. However, it spread via infected USB drives to computers, and from those computers to other USB drives, all the while using rootkits with compromised digital signatures to hide. It essentially used a digital version of '6 degrees of separation' to eventually infect its target. What better way to spread similar malware than to infect a bunch of computers on flights to the target country? It's not just laptops either, cameras need memory cards and are just as easy to infect. As a theory, it's got a lot to commend it, but that's beside the point, because, remember, this is about 'safety' and people not taking bombs into aircraft cabins.

So fast forward to the present, and while expanding the ban has been kicked about, a JetBlue flight has shown the incredible danger of requiring electronics to be put into bags that often are kicked about.

The smoking gun battery (Source, Grand Rapids Ford Airport)

May 30th's JetBlue flight 915 (NY JFK to San Francisco) had to make an emergency landing in Michigan after a AA lithium battery in a backpack started to smoke. When it was noticed, the backpack was moved to the aircraft bathroom which presumably dislodged whatever was causing the short. Luckily that was enough to prevent the fire from getting started, which would have soon gotten out of control.

And therein lies the problem. Lithium battery fires are very dangerous, and one of the things that make them more dangerous than most other fires is that most of the things you'd do by instinct to put out a fire (smother it, put water on it) actually makes them worse. Realistically, the only way to deal with a lithium fire is to stop it before it starts, and while that happened this time, if it were in the hold we'd be looking at a downed Airbus A321 with 158 dead.

Airlines know this and have for a long time. In 2000, I tried to fly with 2 batteries in my checked baggage from the UK to San Francisco with Virgin, and to Las Vegas with TWA. The batteries, Hawker (now Enersys) SBS40's were 38Ah, 12v batteries (yes, you can easily start a car with them) and were packed safely into my checked baggage as well as being certified safe for air travel (they won't leak if tipped or punctured). Virgin had no problems, but TWA flatly refused, citing a risk of fire in the hold (and at 28lb/12.7kg each, carry-on wasn't an option)

Now bear in mind this is a battery designed for rugged use, puncture resistant and safe (which is why they were used in Battlebots entries, which is why I was taking them, for the Suicidal Tendencies team), in a fire-resistant case where the only available fuel might be some small amounts of hydrogen gas, and whatever items are around. Lithium batteries generally don't come in rugged fire-resistant cases, provide their own fuel, and worst of all, physical damage (such as heavy-handed baggage handlers) can cause such damage.

If you want a more specific example of the risks, just cast your minds back to last year and the Samsung note7. With just the potential for a fire with note7 battery, they were banned from aircraft for safety reasons. They weren't consigned to the hold, where they can cause problems without anyone noticing.

And it gets worse, Lithium-ion batteries are EVERYWHERE. Aside from the rechargeable AA and AAA batteries like the one that caught fire on flight 915, lithium batteries are in laptops and cameras. Here are some examples of lithium batteries I had to hand, that I'd take on a trip with me and have to check.

That's a laptop battery, a digital camera battery, a phone battery and a video camera battery (I have 4 of these). One of them is 10 years old, that's how long these batteries have been out there.

Any of these can cause an uncontrollable fire if mishandled (and sometimes, just from age). What's more, any of these devices wouldn't take much to rig with a short-range detonation using nothing more than their own battery as the bomb. A bomb which will pass all the cursory security checks because there are no obvious chemicals (RDX, TNT, etc) to detect.

As a policy to prevent bombings, it's not useless, it's actually WORSE than useless, as it makes it FAR easier to take down an aircraft with electronics, just by accident, let alone by design.

The only people who benefit from this policy were it to be enacted worldwide, would be the computer snoopers, and of course, the many thieves, pilferers, 5-finger-discount shoppers, and general low-life criminals that seem to be employed at most airports in their security/baggage handling/TSA departments. Anyone else is potentially flying corpse-class.

Now, some might say that in this case, having lithium-ion batteries of any kind on an aircraft -- whether in checked luggage or carry-on -- is a recipe for disaster, and that they should be banned in general. But what I'm saying is that they are more prone to fire through mishandling than other battery types, and that such a fire, once it has started and takes hold, is more difficult to get under control easily. Well-maintained, well-treated batteries are safe if they're kept in the cabin, as any incident can at least be quickly addressed, as the recent JetBlue incident showed. Requiring they be put into baggage that is dropped, thrown, punted, squished, molested, rummaged through and otherwise mishandled, before being packed tightly into an aircraft hold unattended means that damage leading to a fire is far more likely, and that fire is unlikely to be discovered – let alone extinguished – before it is too late for the safety of the aircraft.

And if you're wondering how to put out a lithium battery fire when started, the answer is to use a class-D fire extinguisher (which only works on metal fires) but in a pinch, salt (pun intended) or sand can be used. Good luck finding the former, or enough of the latter two at 43,000ft. In a pinch, you can use water in mist form to cool around the battery and bring its temperature down (this can take a LOT of water and time), while also isolating it from any other fuel where possible (which was done in this case). Again, this is not really feasible if the fire is in the hold. Here's a demonstration of extinguishing a laptop battery fire, and how even when prepared, and waiting for it, with an extinguisher at the ready, it can still take a minute or two to put it out. Most people would be tempted to stop once the flames go out, allowing for re-ignition.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>security-theater-making-us-less-safehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170531/23422237494Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:34:00 PSTVerizon Won't Complete Calls For Galaxy Note 7 Owners Who Refuse To Return The Flawed DeviceKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170118/08464936512/verizon-wont-complete-calls-galaxy-note-7-owners-who-refuse-to-return-flawed-device.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170118/08464936512/verizon-wont-complete-calls-galaxy-note-7-owners-who-refuse-to-return-flawed-device.shtmlspontaneously combusting. That led to months of horrible press and an FAA ban on taking the device on airplanes. You might also recall that Samsung exponentially amplified its own PR disaster by then issuing a replacement phone that suffered from the exact same problem. Since then, carriers have been passing on a Samsung update that effectively bricks the device, preventing users from recharging the device. Most users have traded in the device for, you know, something that doesn't explode.

"In spite of our best efforts, there are still customers using the recalled phones who have not returned or exchanged their Note 7 to the point of purchase," a Verizon spokeswoman tells Fortune. "The recalled Note 7s pose a safety risk to our customers and those around them."

Interestingly, Verizon was initially the only wireless provider that refused to pass on the bricking update, insisting they didn't want to leave customers stranded for the holidays (despite the fact said users could have swapped out the device for free at any time). But Verizon has since taken a notably harder stance on the safety issues created by the device. As such, they've announced that they'll now refuse to connect any of the non-911 calls made via the Galaxy Note 7, instead routing every call to Verizon's customer service department:

"So now Verizon is going to go even further, putting the phones in a special category so that all outgoing calls not directed toward the 911 emergency service will only connect to customer service. Because Note 7 users have also already been reimbursed for the cost of the long-since recalled Note 7, Verizon is also saying it might bill the holdouts for the full retail cost of the phone."

It's a curious predicament. On the one hand, you can't feel particularly bad for customers who knowingly refuse to trade in a device that could spontaneously explode, hurting themselves or others in the process. On the other hand, these users are supposed to technically "own" this device, which a carrier is now refusing to connect to the network. And while users on device payment plans may technically still owe Verizon money for the device in Verizon's billing systems, users are arguing that Samsung has already reimbursed Verizon for these devices in the wake of the recall.

Verizon insists it needs to disable the device for public safety (though liability could still be a motivator), while Galaxy Note 7 owners apparently believe they have every right to be stupid, self-immolation be damned.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>spontaneous-combustionhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170118/08464936512Sat, 16 May 2015 09:00:00 PDTAwesome Stuff: Don't Throw Those Batteries Away Just YetLeigh Beadonhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150516/06552431026/awesome-stuff-dont-throw-those-batteries-away-just-yet.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150516/06552431026/awesome-stuff-dont-throw-those-batteries-away-just-yet.shtml
Batteries are the bane of our mobile existence, limiting the usefulness of our devices and bottlenecking the power that can be built into them. External battery packs have unsurprisingly become a popular item, but with heavy usage they are just another device that needs to be regularly replaced, and another source of batteries that end up in the trash. For this week's awesome stuff, we're looking at the BETTER RE: a small piece of inspired engineering that aims to stem that waste and expense by making old smartphone batteries reusable as external battery packs.

The Good

BETTER RE is, quite simply, a universal smartphone battery adapter. You can hook up any battery inside the chassis and the BETTER RE lets you charge it up and use it to charge your devices. This just seems like a great idea. The creators rightly point out that device-churn has picked up the pace, and today the average smartphone is thrown out while its battery still has lots of life left. This is incredibly inefficient and expensive, not to mention a serious disposal headache and environmental concern — and now we're putting millions of additional external batteries in circulation alongside the phones themselves. The BETTER RE stems that tide from both directions, extending the usefulness of phone batteries and reducing the need for new externals. For the individual, it means a powerpack that lasts forever instead of wearing itself out — plus you can use it as a secondary charger, with quick and simple test functions, making it easier to have multiple phone batteries in rotation. There are also stackable expansion units, so you can amp up those old batteries to charge new, high-power devices.

At $50, the BETTER RE is not dirt-cheap but it seems quite reasonable when you consider that it won't need to be regularly replaced the way batteries themselves do. And as a cool bonus, the creators have been stockpiling and testing old batteries, and will throw them in for $10 a piece on top of the regular pledges.

The Bad

Even the BETTER RE can't truly free us from the tyranny of batteries. There are some obvious limitations to the device when compared to a dedicated high-power battery unit: though it's great for smaller phones, even with three units stacked it can't quite give a full charge to an iPad Air, and the charge it does give takes hours; though it's currently designed to work with just about any smartphone battery of any size, there's no guarantee that compatibility will remain; and, of course, more and more devices are being built with non-removable batteries, which could put the brakes on the entire idea. Because of all this, I actually suspect that the biggest markets for the BETTER RE won't be wealthy high-tech countries but rather parts of the world where cheaper, smaller phones still reign supreme — and that's not a problem, as many devices have found huge success and made a real impact by targeting such markets.

The Stylish

Function is what makes the BETTER RE interesting, but it bears mention that it's no slouch on the fashion front either. It's built from aluminum (in white or black, brushed or matte, all of which look very nice in the product shots) and walnut and maple hardwood. As a nice bonus, laser-engraving on the wood endpiece is included with most backer tiers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>rechargehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150516/06552431026Tue, 8 Jul 2014 05:34:00 PDTDHS Cites 'Credible Threat' As Reason For Forcing Travelers To The US To Hand Over Powered-Up Devices To Airport SecurityTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140707/07133227798/dhs-cites-credible-threat-as-reason-forcing-travelers-to-us-to-hand-over-powered-up-devices-to-airport-security.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140707/07133227798/dhs-cites-credible-threat-as-reason-forcing-travelers-to-us-to-hand-over-powered-up-devices-to-airport-security.shtml
The Department of Homeland Security still has the power to control the world's airports, or at least those of our Five Eyes' spying allies. New DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued the following statement on July 2nd.

DHS continually assesses the global threat environment and reevaluates the measures we take to promote aviation security. As part of this ongoing process, I have directed TSA to implement enhanced security measures in the coming days at certain overseas airports with direct flights to the United States. We will work to ensure these necessary steps pose as few disruptions to travelers as possible. We are sharing recent and relevant information with our foreign allies and are consulting the aviation industry. These communications are an important part of our commitment to providing our security partners with situational awareness about the current environment and protecting the traveling public. Aviation security includes a number of measures, both seen and unseen, informed by an evolving environment. As always, we will continue to adjust security measures to promote aviation security without unnecessary disruptions to the traveling public.

The move follows a request from the US that "certain overseas airports" implement enhanced security measures. The UK government has also revised its rules to state that if a "device doesn't switch on, you won't be allowed to bring it on to the aircraft".

Anyone who has absentmindedly allowed a battery to discharge will still have several options, according to Heathrow officials. They can use airport "charging points" to bring their devices back to life or stash them in stowed luggage. They can also mail the device to themselves if they don't mind being separated for a little extra time. This all sounds very accommodating, but simply having a drained device can place you under suspicion.

Affected passengers have been told they may also have to undergo extra screening measures.

There also seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the DHS and the affected airports as to which devices are subject to the new "charged and operable" standard. The TSA says "some devices, including mobile phones," but fails to be any more specific, exactly the sort of vague, malleable direction the TSA is fond of. Heathrow's list of electronics includes hair dryers, electric shavers, cameras and mp3 players and the wording below the list says nothing more than "make sure your electronic devices are charged before you travel."

This vagueness from everyone involved isn't a good sign. Having to present devices not normally inspected by security personnel and power them up lends itself to "incidental" device searches. The heightened suspicion of devices in general doesn't help. And wherever this "credible threat" the DHS cites in support of this move actually originates, it's apparently hoped that it will route itself through Germany, France or the UK. At this point, no other countries offering direct flights to the US have agreed to the additional security measures.

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>urls-we-dig-uphttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110506/17562714190Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:08:44 PDTThe Buzz Over New Battery Technology... And The Questions Raised By Its PatentsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/013433.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/013433.shtmlcreated a technology that can replace electrochemical batteries for things like automobiles. According to the article, if the technology worked as planned, it could mean the ability to create an electric car that would need a five minute charge and could then run for 500 miles without gasoline. Impressive, right? But, the claims seem so outlandish that they certainly should raise the inner skeptic in many people. The technology could very well be real, but there should be a bit more proof before everyone just believes it. And reports of delays in getting the technology to actually work are hardly confidence boosting.

However, what's most interesting about the AP coverage is that it focuses in so much on the patent that EESTor holds on this technology. However, it does quote a few skeptics who question whether or not anyone can actually make what's described in the patent work. That's should (once again) highlight how pointless these types of patents are. People often point (mistakenly) to the benefits of patents "disclosing" new technologies -- and, indeed, the point of patent disclosure is to reveal the idea to the level that someone skilled in that field can use the patent to recreate the invention described. However, in these days of overly broad or speculative patents, it's quite rare that a patent provides the information needed to actually create what's claimed -- and that's clearly the case with EEStor's technology. Since no one, not even EEStor or its partners, seems to be able to actually make the technology do what the patent claims it can do, shouldn't that call into question the validity of the patent itself?